<html dir="ltr">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<style id="owaParaStyle" type="text/css">
<!--
p
{margin-top:0;
margin-bottom:0}
-->
P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}</style>
</head>
<body ocsi="0" fpstyle="1">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color: #000000;font-size: 10pt;">
<div style="direction:ltr; font-family:Tahoma; color:#000000; font-size:10pt">Time to go beyond Z, or at least Q, C and D!<br>
<br>
Answers and comments ...<br>
<div style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#000000; font-size:16px">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRpF879924" style="direction:ltr"><font face="Tahoma" color="#000000" size="2"><b>From:</b> General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of David Mathes [davidmathes8@yahoo.com]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, July 02, 2015 6:38 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Physics in 100 years according to Wilczek<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div></div>
<div>
<div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:HelveticaNeue,Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,Arial,Lucida Grande,sans-serif; font-size:16px">
<div id="yiv9288942307">
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1435852875010_43048">
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1435852875010_43047" style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:HelveticaNeue,Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,Arial,Lucida Grande,sans-serif; font-size:16px">
<div id="yiv9288942307yui_3_16_0_1_1435852875010_25060"><span>Richard et all</span></div>
<div id="yiv9288942307yui_3_16_0_1_1435852875010_25060"><span><br clear="none">
</span></div>
<div id="yiv9288942307yui_3_16_0_1_1435852875010_25060"><span id="yiv9288942307yui_3_16_0_1_1435852875010_25232">Yes, Wilczek takes a QCD approach in his SM treatment. While he appears myopic, his pragmatism is basically...take the next step to electroweak,
strong force is different and gravity is a pain. </span>And yet, he also takes the approach that SUSY is the strongest path to a GUT feeling.<br>
<br>
<font color="0000FF">Yep, Wilkzek is a good man, and SUSY has long had a lot of hungry followers wanting to fill their GUT's with a good meal - whe<font color="0000FF">n</font> there has never been so much as a salad in sight!</font><br>
</div>
<div id="yiv9288942307yui_3_16_0_1_1435852875010_25060"><br clear="none">
</div>
<div id="yiv9288942307yui_3_16_0_1_1435852875010_25060">I consider rest mass to be a special case of energy in a specific frame of reference yet influence by the mass-energy of the universe, a Machian view that Einstein abandoned. For mass, scale factors can
be used for gravitational, inertia, and quantum mass as well as other types. <br>
<br>
<font color="0000FF">Fundamentally right! I would not say "in" a specific frame of reference though, but rather "bound to a specific frame of reference" or "pinned to a specific frame of reference" or "confined</font><font color="0000FF"><font color="0000FF">
to a specific frame of reference". Perhaps better than any of these is </font></font><font color="0000FF">"localised in a specific frame of reference"</font>
</div>
<div id="yiv9288942307yui_3_16_0_1_1435852875010_25060"><br clear="none">
</div>
<div id="yiv9288942307yui_3_16_0_1_1435852875010_25060">So, what does the next 100 years hold? Here is a wish list...with good intentions and specific to physics, but not as well thought out...not necessarily directly related to the photon, but related as
influencing a massless particle traveling light-like velocity.<br>
<br>
<font color="0000FF">Hihi. The right answer is "mu" of course. Unask the question, but nonetheless ...</font><br>
</div>
<div id="yiv9288942307yui_3_16_0_1_1435852875010_25060"><br clear="none">
</div>
<div id="yiv9288942307yui_3_16_0_1_1435852875010_25060">1. Model of the electron internals especially parametric, Model of the photon internals especially parametric<br>
<br>
<font color="0000FF">Yes, maybe, at first. Long term though - no. Lets go for proper holomorphic, analytic solutions to a proper full-blown theory. Why settle for less?
<br>
</font></div>
<font color="0000FF"></font>
<div class="yiv9288942307" id="yiv9288942307yui_3_16_0_1_1435852875010_25060"><br class="yiv9288942307" clear="none">
</div>
<div class="yiv9288942307" id="yiv9288942307yui_3_16_0_1_1435852875010_25060">2. Back reaction on pilot field understood<br>
<font color="0000FF"><br>
This is a big question ... and one which I was going to devote to a paper here, but did not have the time. Briefly, I think it is easy to understand the "back reaction" of you think symmetrically both beyond (tachyonic) and before (subluminal) the speed of
light. You need to think very very carefully about just what you mean by "back". Especially about "backwards" and "forwards" in time. This is what Carver Mead's keynote talk was on at the conference two years ago - though he did not go far enough in explaining
it in my view. You need to get causality right!</font><br>
</div>
<div class="yiv9288942307" id="yiv9288942307yui_3_16_0_1_1435852875010_25060"><br>
</div>
<div class="yiv9288942307" dir="ltr" id="yiv9288942307yui_3_16_0_1_1435852875010_25060">
3. Model of the transluminal quanta and states thereof - change the conditions while preserving the c of GR?<br>
<br>
<font color="0000FF">The "transluminality" is already there. Proper, massive, relativistic wave-functions must always contain both subluminal and superluminal components.
</font><br clear="none">
</div>
<div dir="ltr" id="yiv9288942307yui_3_16_0_1_1435852875010_25060"><br clear="none">
</div>
<div dir="ltr" id="yiv9288942307yui_3_16_0_1_1435852875010_25060">4. Model of proton and neutron - QCD<br>
<font color="0000FF"><br>
Yes, but QCD is far too simple. Further, it is non-perturbative. This means, if you are optimistic, that you can calculate anything with it, and if pessimistic that nothing can be calculated with it. Both points of view are true!</font><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" id="yiv9288942307yui_3_16_0_1_1435852875010_25060"><br clear="none">
</div>
<div dir="ltr" id="yiv9288942307yui_3_16_0_1_1435852875010_25060">5. Quanta layer (below elementary particle layer) or</div>
<div dir="ltr" id="yiv9288942307yui_3_16_0_1_1435852875010_25060">what's smaller than a photon but within GR?<br>
<br>
<font color="0000FF">As I keep saying: you do not want to put quantisation in. You want to get quantisation out!</font><br>
</div>
<div class="yiv9288942307" dir="ltr" id="yiv9288942307yui_3_16_0_1_1435852875010_25060">
<br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" id="yiv9288942307yui_3_16_0_1_1435852875010_25060">6. Negative vacuum engineering of the region. What is between zero vacuum and void. (define void)<br>
<font color="0000FF"><br>
David - you also need to define what you mean by "negative vacuum". Do you mean negative energy density? What is the (dimensional) form of negative vacuum you mean? do you mean inverting space and time? (leading to Penrose twistor like solutions). This is just
too vague!</font><br>
</div>
<div id="yiv9288942307yui_3_16_0_1_1435852875010_25060"><br clear="none">
</div>
<div id="yiv9288942307yui_3_16_0_1_1435852875010_25060">7. CPT violations resolved especially asymmetric B-meson byproducts of e-e+<br>
<br>
<font color="0000FF">There are, to my knowledge, no CPT violations. Only CP and PT violations. Anyone know any different?</font><br>
</div>
<div id="yiv9288942307yui_3_16_0_1_1435852875010_25060">
<div class="" dir="ltr" id="yiv9288942307yui_3_16_0_1_1435852875010_25060"><br>
</div>
</div>
<div class="yiv9288942307" dir="ltr" id="yiv9288942307yui_3_16_0_1_1435852875010_25060">
8. Equations resolving particle-wave, perhaps a single equation<br>
<font color="0000FF"><br>
This is exactly what I'm trying to do with my new photon wave-function! It is a wave, with fixed angular momentum, but any energy. It is a solution to the ordinary Maxwell equation<font color="0000FF">.</font> Is this not good enough?</font><br>
</div>
<div class="yiv9288942307" dir="ltr" id="yiv9288942307yui_3_16_0_1_1435852875010_26693">
<br class="yiv9288942307" clear="none">
</div>
<div class="yiv9288942307" dir="ltr" id="yiv9288942307yui_3_16_0_1_1435852875010_26693">
<div class="" dir="ltr" id="yiv9288942307yui_3_16_0_1_1435852875010_25060">9. Gravity and QFT unified<br>
<font color="0000FF"><br>
Next conference</font><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" class="" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1435852875010_44391"><br class="">
</div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" id="yiv9288942307yui_3_16_0_1_1435852875010_25060">10. SUSY predictions come true (Wilczek)<br>
<br>
<font color="0000FF">I do not think so. Even if SUSY did happen you would still be left with a spastic hamburger of a theory. Besides the are already loads of predictions that are simply not so experimentally. Forget about it.</font><br>
</div>
<div id="yiv9288942307yui_3_16_0_1_1435852875010_25060"><br clear="none">
</div>
<div class="yiv9288942307" dir="ltr" id="yiv9288942307yui_3_16_0_1_1435852875010_26459">
11. Mastering gravity physics like EM - field shielding, directional field control, push gravity (repulsion, dark energy)</div>
<div class="yiv9288942307" dir="ltr" id="yiv9288942307yui_3_16_0_1_1435852875010_26458">
"Where is push gravity?" (see dark energy aka non-interactive with photons)<br>
<br>
<font color="0000FF">I think I know how to do this. Gravity is a derivative of electromagnetism. Understand this and you can shield it - in principle. Engineering it may take a little while but it can, and will, be done. This may take a decade or two.<br>
</font></div>
<font color="0000FF"></font>
<div class="yiv9288942307" dir="ltr" id="yiv9288942307yui_3_16_0_1_1435852875010_26458">
<font color="0000FF"></font><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" id="yiv9288942307yui_3_16_0_1_1435852875010_25060">
<div id="yiv9288942307yui_3_16_0_1_1435852875010_26815" class="">12. Spacetime control fundamentals - can be curved and rotated (Woodward)<br>
<font color="0000FF"><br>
Why bother? Leave the poor space and time alone. Let it do the work for you.</font><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" class="" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1435852875010_43938"><br class="">
</div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" id="yiv9288942307yui_3_16_0_1_1435852875010_25060">13. Renormalization not necessary<br>
<font color="0000FF"><br>
Dirac showed how to do this for EM in editions of is "quantum mechanics" earlier than the fourth. All you need is a fundamental cut-off at lambdac/4pi.</font><br>
</div>
<div class="yiv9288942307" dir="ltr" id="yiv9288942307yui_3_16_0_1_1435852875010_26908">
<br>
</div>
<div class="yiv9288942307" dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1435852875010_43465">
<div dir="ltr" class="" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1435852875010_44004">
<div class="" dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1435852875010_43465">14. Negative physics creates negative vacuum, mass, energy and time<br>
<br>
<font color="0000FF">No. Not negative mass. Not so far, experimentally, at any rate. Negative time<font color="0000FF">, b<font color="0000FF">y itself, just gives positive mass (and
<font color="0000FF">positive space - as opposed to the more usual negative space of our everyday experience). Negative energy is already built-in in gravitational inter-actions. T<font color="0000FF">h</font>is leads to a total energy of the universe of just
about (and pro<font color="0000FF">b</font>a<font color="0000FF">b</font>ly exactly) zero<font color="0000FF">. See Feynmann. A dutch guy was first, but his name escapes me temporarily - Ma<font color="0000FF">rtin will fill me in.</font></font></font></font></font></font><br>
</div>
<div class="" dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1435852875010_43465"></div>
</div>
</div>
<div id="yiv9288942307yui_3_16_0_1_1435852875010_26815">
<div dir="ltr" id="yiv9288942307yui_3_16_0_1_1435852875010_25060" class=""><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" id="yiv9288942307yui_3_16_0_1_1435852875010_25060" class="">15. Multiverse Medium - the spacetime between universes is explored and explained<br>
<font color="0000FF"><br>
No multiverses. They do not conserve energy. Silly idea with far too much currency (in my view).</font><br class="" clear="none">
</div>
<div dir="ltr" class="" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1435852875010_44060"><br class="">
</div>
</div>
<div id="yiv9288942307yui_3_16_0_1_1435852875010_26815">
<div class="" dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1435852875010_43465">16. Discovery of additional fundamental forces (Bushman's eight?)<br>
<br>
<font color="0000FF">Got too many already. Would you settle for just one? Perhaps fragmented by space and time into sixteen components. I'll put the equat<font color="0000FF">ions into one of my coming drafts.</font></font><br class="">
</div>
<div class="" dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1435852875010_43465"><br>
</div>
<div class="" dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1435852875010_43465">17. Phat, spin-controlled, conditioned, charged photons<br>
<br>
<font color="0000FF">Right!</font><br>
</div>
<div class="" dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1435852875010_43465"><br>
</div>
<div class="" dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1435852875010_43465">18. Spooky action-at-a-distance explained<br>
<br>
<font color="0000FF">Everything must be local and causal. Local and causal in each and every relativistic frame. Simultaneously. Not understanding how this can be so is just down to a lack of imagination!</font><br>
</div>
<div class="" dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1435852875010_43465"><br>
</div>
<div class="" dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1435852875010_43465">19. Scalable event horizon using fluid dynamic modeling (non-quantized)<br>
<font color="0000FF"><br>
I do not understand this. Tell me more! </font><br>
</div>
<div class="" dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1435852875010_43465"><br>
</div>
<div class="" dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1435852875010_43465">20. Baryon asymmetry resolved<br>
<font color="0000FF"><br>
And leptons.<br>
<br>
<font color="0000FF">Cheers, John W.</font><br>
</font></div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>